Speed camera detectors

kafkaian · Post by **kafkaian** » 27 Mar 2005, 04:09

On this subject I can empathise with most views. However, I would like to see in time the use of black boxes which transmit data to Dept of Transport satellites for reasons which shall become apparent. No, I'm not looking into a Big Brother scenario, but the reality is; whether nun or thief, university professor or taxi driver, NQD or experienced pensioner, we ALL speed at times. What really infuriates me more than anything is Mr Sod and his law. You know, that guy who just breaks your concentration when approaching a speed camera when normally you drive impeccably? I haven't been caught by one yet (I don't actually like speed) but no doubt in time I will, but I get really frustrated seeing the boy racer who knows an area well, dodging traffic and actually slowing down just for the cameras before racing off again to threaten fellow road users with abysmal behaviour. I come back to the satellite.
I would rather see points accrued for an above average speed over a given time being implemented than this minting process currently in operation. I do have sympathy for the "35 in a 30" motorist who's just had his house burgled and front wall sprayed with graffiti with no real support from the Police apparently available. To be quite frank, I'm sick of the easy targets being penalised whilst vandals, thieves and abusers get away (seemingly) with daylight robbery.
It's all swings and roundabouts of course and what's justice anyway? But I do think whilst I abhor speed and poor driving, I do also concede that many decent people get caught by opportunist microcosmic policing.
An averaging system which also takes into account stupidly high speeds at any given instant, and let society and experts agree what this actually equates to, would be a more just system.

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 27 Mar 2005, 05:49

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Homer
Still, I would like to spend a day driving with you and see just how true your statement is. I bet you break the limit from time to time without even knowing it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Pretty much all of my driving is going to work or from work and I know the roads and the limits. There are a couple of places where the speed limit changes on a downhill stretch of road and since my driving style involves using the brakes as little as possible (i.e. lifting off the throttle early and coasting in top gear) I sometimes enter the speed limit too quickly. There are other occasions where I may stray 2 or 3 miles per hour over the speed limit but that is the limit of my speeding. None of it is intentional and where I do stray I tend to stray marginally for short periods. That is not to say that I drive like a pensioner, at times I drive quite quickly but within the law as far as speed limits go, if I have an accident where speed is a factor I can guaratee that it'll be at a legal speed.
I do find at times that I have quite a convoy behind me even when I'm driving at the speed limit particularly in 30mph zones. People seem to prefer to tailgate than to overtake somehow people must think speeding is OK unless you happen to be overtaking and speeding at the same time.

Homer · Post by **Homer** » 27 Mar 2005, 13:58

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Kowalski

I sometimes enter the speed limit too quickly. There are other occasions where I may stray 2 or 3 miles per hour over the speed limit but that is the limit of my speeding.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Better watch out, that is exactly where they like to site their vans, once you cross that line you are breaking the law.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">if I have an accident where speed is a factor I can guaratee that it'll be at a legal speed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Then it will be OK then.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I do find at times that I have quite a convoy behind me even when I'm driving at the speed limit particularly in 30mph zones. People seem to prefer to tailgate than to overtake somehow people must think speeding is OK unless you happen to be overtaking and speeding at the same time.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
That's another thing which makes me seethe, why is it that people seem to think overtaking has been outlawed. They'll sit behind a caravan for 1342143143 miles yet if anyone decides they can safely go a bit faster they'll close the gap to about 3cm.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by kafkaian

However, I would like to see in time the use of black boxes which transmit data to Dept of Transport satellites
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No no no no no no no no no no no no no.
I'm sorry but the government just cannot be trusted to use such information for the best.
You'll start getting fines for every possible minor transgression. Stop to drop someone off on a double yellow (perfectly legal) and you'll have to prove you were actually dropping off a passenger.
Swerve into a bus lane to avoid an accident - well you may as well pay the fine, you'll never get off that one. This is already happening with camera monitoring of bus lanes.
The only way to police the roads is to do it with real police who can tell the difference between a dangerous driver and a technichal transgression, and give them the power to use their discression. If it costs us more in tax then that is fine by me, at least we can gurantee it will make the roads safer.
By the way - I have a clean licence in case you are wondering, that doesn't stop me being paranoid.

kafkaian · Post by **kafkaian** » 27 Mar 2005, 16:32

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by kafkaian

However, I would like to see in time the use of black boxes which transmit data to Dept of Transport satellites
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No no no no no no no no no no no no no.
I'm sorry but the government just cannot be trusted to use such information for the best.
You'll start getting fines for every possible minor transgression. Stop to drop someone off on a double yellow (perfectly legal) and you'll have to prove you were actually dropping off a passenger.
Swerve into a bus lane to avoid an accident - well you may as well pay the fine, you'll never get off that one. This is already happening with camera monitoring of bus lanes.
The only way to police the roads is to do it with real police who can tell the difference between a dangerous driver and a technichal transgression, and give them the power to use their discression. If it costs us more in tax then that is fine by me, at least we can gurantee it will make the roads safer.
By the way - I have a clean licence in case you are wondering, that doesn't stop me being paranoid.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
[:D][:D]I do agree that the DoT could only be given certain bits of information. The subject of misinformation is another matter however and probably appropriate for a more "political" board? [8D][:D]
Anyway, in essence I do agree and all I'm saying is that an averaging system is a more just system which is more likely to catch the real speeding motorists rather than the unlucky annointed by this lottery we have currently.[:D]

Homer · Post by **Homer** » 27 Mar 2005, 20:16

You are right, this discussion has probably gone too far for this board.
Put your idea up over here, you can use the anonymous area if you prefer. I'll know who you are and you'll know who I am.
Don't worry, there's a good cross-section post there, some police officers and even some Scam operators.

kafkaian · Post by **kafkaian** » 27 Mar 2005, 21:18

Great, I will

uhn113x · Post by **uhn113x** » 27 Mar 2005, 21:24

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bxbodger

You only need to panic brake if you are going too fast and too close to the vehicle in front, which a lot of people do seem to do.
I would love to see coppers nicking people for tailgating, unfortunately something a camera can't do. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
IMHO that is probably the cause of most major motorway pile-ups - you still get people that think they can get to their destination a few milliseconds sooner (most important, that!) if you drive as close as possible to the vehicle in front, and totally ignore what is happening ahead.
How many times have we followed someone in a 30 limit that feels they have to brake every few yards?

uhn113x · Post by **uhn113x** » 27 Mar 2005, 21:27

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Homer
Under current rules they cannot put fixed cameras on national speed limit sections of motorway. They can put them where there is a permanent or temporary reduced limit.
If you are talking about the rumours that keep going around about speed cameras hidden in the motorway matrix signs it's complete boar locks.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Oh! Cannot remember what my source was, but I thought they were already visibly in operation somewhere darn sarf. It may have not been on a motorway, though.

Gregg1100 · Post by **Gregg1100** » 27 Mar 2005, 22:55

Hi All,
They banned mobile phones because they thought they were stopping people from concentrating on their driving, yet allow GPS which will take your eyes off road for longer,and smoking . Why not go all the way and ban asses that need a scratch, noses that itch, kids and some wives that whinge.
Coming down the A40/A449 Friday morning, very little traffic, dual carriageway, what was in a layby ? You guessed it. A camera van. There would have been ZILCH safety issues; these are there for one thing only. To generate money. Apart from that, one vehicle takes up a whole layby, cos no-one will go anywhere near them. -ankers.
Regards, Greg

Homer · Post by **Homer** » 27 Mar 2005, 23:05

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by uhn113x

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Homer
Under current rules they cannot put fixed cameras on national speed limit sections of motorway. They can put them where there is a permanent or temporary reduced limit.
If you are talking about the rumours that keep going around about speed cameras hidden in the motorway matrix signs it's complete boar locks.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Oh! Cannot remember what my source was, but I thought they were already visibly in operation somewhere darn sarf. It may have not been on a motorway, though.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The M25 has fixed cameras (not sure if SPECS) but only when the limit is lower than the national speed limit.
SPECS have been used in roadworks on the M6 Thelwall viaduct during roadworks.
Mobile vans are allowed to park on motorway bridges and target vehicles on the motorway. Happens on the M6 in Cumbria when they don't have enough tourists to pick on and the M62 in West Yorkshire. (and others)

DervDonkey · Post by **DervDonkey** » 27 Mar 2005, 23:34

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Why not go all the way and ban ... and some wives that whinge.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I'll go for that[:D]!
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you are talking about the rumours that keep going around about speed cameras hidden in the motorway matrix signs it's complete boar locks.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It is. No company that I'm aware of currently does this, and certainly not us. There would be a number of technical issues to overcome, not least the lack of space in existing signs. I'm sure somebody will do it eventually, but we won't because there's really no market for it outside the speed camera obsessed UK and we'd never recover our development costs on such a project. Our competitors probably think the same way.

fastandfurryous · Post by **fastandfurryous** » 28 Mar 2005, 03:53

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
The M25 has fixed cameras (not sure if SPECS) but only when the limit is lower than the national speed limit.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The variable speed limit on the M25 is one of the few speed limits I happen to agree with. It's not there as a "safety" issue, it's there to keep the traffic moving. The limit is set by a human being, in response to traffic conditions further along the road.
When in use, I understand that the cameras are set to trigger at about 15% over speed (46 in 40, 57.5 in 50 etc...) and when out of use (national speed limit applies) then they are set at 95Mph. If you drive from Heathrow to Gatwick at 100mph you are guaranteed to loose your licence.

turbolag · Post by **turbolag** » 29 Mar 2005, 02:23

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by yangreen

I'm pleased I'm not the only one who thinks not speeding is a good way of avoiding fines. I cannot stand people who complain that cameras are a stealth tax. No they aren't! Taxes are not optional!!
Maybe it's just because I live in the countryside now. Must admit that breaking the 30mph limit around Birmingham was something I did without a thought but then, there aren't lots of little signs reminding you! It now annoys me when people speed through my village! How you change!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Good for you m8. People moan about all this but the equation is simple, a any student of Einstein will tell you;
Don't speed
---------------------------- = No need to pay fines
Desire to keep ones own cash
I have to confess to having started using the old fashioned MKI eyeball roadsign/traffic/pedestrian/speedo detector and it seems to work a damn treat.

FrenchLeave · Post by **FrenchLeave** » 29 Mar 2005, 22:40

If I remember correctly, the 70mph dual/60mph single carriageway speed limit was introduced by the red witch, Barbara Castle, in 1967. At that time most cars' max speeds were no more than 80mph with chassis performance commensurate with their speed. To have the same restriction now on relatively clear roads is ridiculous. It encourages mindless morons to sit in the outside overtaking lane (it is not "the fast lane") on the basis that "nobody should be driving faster than me, I'm on the limit" despite the fact that their speedo may well be overreading by 10%. Conversely there are many times when 30mph in a 30 limit is downright dangerous. As the emminently sensible contributors to this forum know, the trick is to travel at a safe speed and sod the limits.

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 29 Mar 2005, 22:58

Cars capabilities have improved since 1967 but drivers eyesight hasn't improved nor has driver reaction times either and I'm sure that drivers have not improved in their attitude to safety.
Speed limits can be raised but only under ideal conditions. The problem with raising speed limits is that people will speed up regardless of conditions. Everybody drives at the speed limit (or above it) all of the time. In snow, rain and darkness (when you can't get full beams on) visibility is reduced but people don't slow down. Its not safe to drive more quickly when the traffic is stop start, just imagine 80mph motorway pileups instead of 70mph ones. You can't support people believing they have a right to drive unsafely, driver education and respect for the current speed limits have to be tackled first before you can even think of raising speed limits.